God I hate loyalty. Worst mechanic EVER.

[UWHabs]

I'll give another positive vote to loyalty. While it can be a pain at times, it actually makes you plan more.

For example, in my current game (Kupe), I decided that I wanted to use my Toa to try to take out Lautaro. Well, it was much slower than I hoped, mostly because I was in a golden age, and he had a few campuses up so got to crossbows fairly early in the war. There was one city on the edge of his empire, but on the border with Hungary, that I took down first, but I knew that I couldn't hold it due to loyalty until I caught their next city. So I got it redlined, and just kept a couple units around it to siege it so it couldn't recover.

So I moved my army towards their next city, and got enough attacks to dump its walls, but he came back strong with swords and crossbows, and I was losing a lot of units. Now, the council resolution to make cheaper units was in play, so my main couple cities were pumping out Toa every 3 turns, but they were killing my units just about as fast. At one point, I ended up taking the city I was sieging, and was hoping that with a governor it wouldn't flip. But I was losing the race, and eventually it got down to 1 turn left. At that point, I wasn't going to be able to take their next city, so I ended up giving the city back to them in peace, retreated my units, regrouped, and decided to take out Hungary instead.

So yes, because of loyalty, it definitely stung in my battle. But to me, it worked exactly right. There was a ton of pressure, that I couldn't simply walk in and snipe a city without really fighting to keep it. I purposely sieged the city and delayed capturing it in hopes that I could actually take a couple cities at the same time and have a better chance of holding both. It added another strategic challenge, and because of that and the world congress, I actually couldn't keep up my war and had to pivot.

 

[Deggial]

... So that's it, that's the ultimate purpose of the entire complicated Loyalty system of civic revolts representing internal instability, to slap some fix on stupid AI bordergore? ...

That's your interpretation, but I don't think, the loyalty system is mainly introduced for this reason.
It does certainly has this effect, but it is also there to make conquest more challenging and interesting - and seems to be indeed successful in it, as the OP proves.

... Who controls the area in human history is decided by applied force. It doesn't matter if my city is surrounded by much bigger civs territory if I have military power to beat any aspiring "loyalty flipper" among my citizens to a bloody pulp.

The +2 loyalty for garrisoned troops is meant to represent this.
The effect is quite small, though and also requires a valuable card slot.

Maybe the loyalty boost from stationed units should be a basic one?
And/or the card could be changed so that every own unit (- the enemy ones?) in the city's territory adds an additional +1 loyalty?
With such a change, disloyal cities could certainly suppressed effectively but to a huge cost of units that can't be used in other places. A bold city capture could stop your conquering like that. (Notwithstanding the fact that just continue conquering would solve the issue as well. But that's not to the point here.)

 

[Victoria]

Every mechanic annoys someone, amd loyalty is losing a hard won prize.
Once you know the mechanic well you even know. How to settle a -20 tile.
More importantly you know when not to take a city, or when to raze a city so you can take the rest.
They can be abused with flip n pillage and can be used as troop healing flipping cities or as science/culture farms.
You may think the +2 card is not strong but combined with the governor +2 card you are at +12 and only losing 8 loyalty a turn unless hungry or unhappy and this is likely the big issue here. If you are ecstatic then it is not +12 is is + 18 and it will take 25 turns for the city to flip.
If your civ is unhappy and you go to war of course the opposition is going to flip, if the city is starving you have no hope... it is about understanding and using correctly. Not blindly warring and complaining when it flips.
Taking a settler and a builder to war can really help, chopping in food can be a godsend, razing a fat useless city is often of better use than keeping something that drains your amenities.
Amenities are as key to flipping as governors.

 

[ezzlar]

I still think it´s a bit too hard to settle a -20 spot. There should be more (expensive/demanding) ways to emergency boost a loyalty pressured city. (Maybe I should try Victorias suggestions above)

The only thing I dont really like about loyalty is when a city falls on a crowded continent leading to a domino effect where the capital falls in the end. Highly unrealistic. Palace should have 5 squares 100% loyalty zone. Or at least double loyalty pressure or something.

 

[kaspergm]

Since it's opinion thread, I love the loyalty mechanic and I would even want it to be more complex. Cities changing hands in war should never be easy. The system is a bit ham-fisted, as many in Civ VI, though. A pity there's no nationality.

I agree wholeheartedly. Also, happiness plays too little impact on loyalty. You can run cities with unhappiness for a long time without serious consequences other than a growth and production hit, that you often will not care for. A city that is unhappy should have a steadily increasing loyalty penalty and be more vulnerable to foreign pressure.

I do agree though, about settling the -20 spot, there should be some way to buff a newly founded city, maybe some card that gives you an immediate loyalty burst on settling so that it will start not a +100 but maybe +300, giving you more time to build it up.

 

[BrotherInJah]

I think the "free city" state accurate enough reflects this... you have at least 10 turns for your military to "remind" them. If you do not make it in time they join your opponent.

And then what..? It flips again, going with this endless loop.

I have written this couple of times: strong military presence should hold the flipping, not one unit in city but whole army. Sure, it could spawn some rebel units even w/o flip.

My biggest issue to loyalty system is the fact that pressure ignores terrain (same for rel), how, really how a city behind mountain chain drops loyalty in my city, where there is no passage except of some big detour.

Those examples from real life never ever covered this nonsense. It rather opposite, countries walled by mountains were all good despite having big neighbors.

Fix that and i will be praising loyalty system.

 

[Victoria]

I still think it´s a bit too hard to settle a -20 spot. There should be more (expensive/demanding) ways to emergency boost a loyalty pressured city. (Maybe I should try Victorias suggestions above)

The only thing I dont really like about loyalty is when a city falls on a crowded continent leading to a domino effect where the capital falls in the end. Highly unrealistic. Palace should have 5 squares 100% loyalty zone. Or at least double loyalty pressure or something.

The capital has double. Once raw and once modified.

Settling on -20... Hunt sic draconis helps as your city starts with 3 pop.
Basically you will have -20 pop pressure against you
Governor +8
Cards +2&+2
Ecstatic +6
Monument +1

I count 19, immediately buy a granary and chop in food tiles often is enough, another settler.
As England it is easy because you have the RNDY for +4, and 2 x 2 charge admirals (mausoleum) one gives +2 loyalty and one gives +4.
You can use other governor abilities or civ abilities, golden age helps, dark hinders.
Hunt sic dracones is +2

Just take their cities with ships if so inclined.
Look out for Eleanor and enemy amani’s. Naturally being able to defend as well.
... and remember that a governor that can buy a district still takes 5 turns before they can do so.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

In GS Victor has become very important in battling loyalty...+4 to all cities within 9 tiles is nothing to scoff at.

 

[criZp]

Rebellion in three turns. Rebellion in three turns. Rebellion in three turns. YES, I have put a governor there. Yes, I have a military unit there. Yes, I converted it to my religion (not that I think that helps, but IT SHOULD).

They setup this mechanic that makes it insanely hard to play your game and give you no tools for dealing with it.

I've flipped this freaking city FOUR TIMES, maybe more. The game forces you to TAKE VERY SINGLE ENEMY CITY IN A ROW ONCE RIGHT AFTER THE OTHER or whatever city you take will NEVER STOP FLIPPING.

I tried building a city nearby hoping that would bump up the loyalty, no help at all. I'm in a golden age, NO HELP AT ALL. NOTHING. FREAKING. HELPS.

If there was a MOD to just rip this crap from the game I'd be all over it in a New York minute.

Loyalty loss from pop is never more than -20. Enemy governor Amani can add -2 to that. A governor of your own with that diplo policy gives you +10. Monument is +1, following your religion is +3. Military garrison with lumitanei or whatever military policy is +2. Colonial offices is +3 if on foreign continent. Happiness is up to +6. Colonial civs like england, spain and dutch have civ-specific ways of getting a few more loyalty points. It sounds like you just need to git gud, mate.

 

[Victoria]

following your religion is +3.

Good luck with that

 

[criZp]

Good luck with that

Well I dislike the religion mechanic and never use it so I wouldn't really know.

 

[Orkonkel]

It is annoying but if you look at history it is not far from how conquest has played (or fizzled) out.

Citation needed.

Yes, rebellions did happen, but it was far more common that cities/provinces were ceded during war without breaking off (barring the support of foreign military aid). And it's not like the people in Indochina randomly thought 'o look at Ming they have lots of guys there let's become their nation instead'. Just look at the myriad of trading enclaves all over the world, where you would have literally a single city (sometimes just districts) far, far away from home in the middle of another nation.

Loyalty, happiness, and revolts need a rework to make the mechanics more interesting. Also, cities need a 'recently conquered' modifier that boosts loyalty with +5-20 (find a number that works) for a number of turns before fading.

 

[BrotherInJah]

Well I dislike the religion mechanic and never use it so I wouldn't really know.

Then you must dislike loyalty as this is copy paste from religion with some tweaks..

 

[Karmah]

Then you must dislike loyalty as this is copy paste from religion with some tweaks..

Yeah well, there is a fundamental difference, loyalty works.

 

[ezzlar]

The capital has double. Once raw and once modified.

Settling on -20... Hunt sic draconis helps as your city starts with 3 pop.
Basically you will have -20 pop pressure against you
Governor +6
Cards +2&+2
Ecstatic +6
Hunt sic Dracones +2
Monument +1

I count 19, immediately buy a granary and chop in food tiles often is enough, another settler.
As England it is easy because you have the RNDY for +4, and 2 x 2 charge admirals (mausoleum) one gives +2 loyalty and one gives +4.
You can use other governor abilities or civ abilities, golden age helps, dark hinders.

Just take their cities with ships if so inclined.
Look out for Eleanor and enemy amani’s. Naturally being able to defend as well.
... and remember that a governor that can buy a district still takes 5 turns before they can do so.

Well, some of these cases are highly situational which might be hard to remedy on the spot: huc sint dracones, dark/normal/golden age, ecstatic. Then we would more likely end up with 6+2+2+1=11 loyalty. At that rate, flipping might occur early. And we are sacrificing two potential valuable cards to get the 2+2, although Diplomatic and Military aren´t the most important ones.

Victor is of course a nice with his +4 loyalty!

 

[acluewithout]

You can settle colonial cities, even with -20. It takes planning and it’s challenging. But to me that’s when the loyalty system is really doing earning its keep - making a more challenging game.

The problem with Colonial Cities is that they just aren’t quite worth the effort, but that’s partly to do with pacing.

 

[kaspergm]

Although niche strategy, in one game I settled a -20 spot and used Gustaf Eiffel and some chops to rush Statue of Liberty. It was probably not optimal play, but it was pretty fun, and I got to grasp a tasty natural wonder which AI had (as usual) failed to claim.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Although niche strategy, in one game I settled a -20 spot and used Gustaf Eiffel and some chops to rush Statue of Liberty. It was probably not optimal play, but it was pretty fun, and I got to grasp a tasty natural wonder which AI had (as usual) failed to claim.

One of the things I love most about the system is the mini-games it opens up: what do I have to do to make the border city flip? Alternatively, can I capture/settle here and get away with it?

In my Dido game yesterday I had great fun with this, forward settling two cities between India and Hungary on a different continent to me and just about managing to keep them from flipping for long enough until I could complete the "move capital" project in another city on that continent. Then later in the same game, I had taken India's capital leaving him with one tiny city. I let the AI take that and wipe him out, doing my dirty work for me and letting me get off relatively grievance-free, knowing I could just make it flip as it was between India's old capital (now mine) and my founded cities. Very satisfying.

 

[Haggbart]

Citation needed.

Yes, rebellions did happen, but it was far more common that cities/provinces were ceded during war without breaking off (barring the support of foreign military aid). And it's not like the people in Indochina randomly thought 'o look at Ming they have lots of guys there let's become their nation instead'. Just look at the myriad of trading enclaves all over the world, where you would have literally a single city (sometimes just districts) far, far away from home in the middle of another nation.

Loyalty, happiness, and revolts need a rework to make the mechanics more interesting. Also, cities need a 'recently conquered' modifier that boosts loyalty with +5-20 (find a number that works) for a number of turns before fading.

I'm all for interesting, but if you go about and steamroll the AI without having to worry about cities flipping, we're back to the basic problem that loyalty was supposed to solve - it was too easy to snowball through military conquest. Now at least some times you have to put some strategic effort into keeping those cities. Remove the quick city flips, and you remove the added difficulty for the human player that is much needed.

 

[tedhebert]

For me , the loyalty system has changed greatly how I go about warmongering when I do...

Most Civ previous versions, the strategy was very often: Take the small border cities first, trying to take those with encampments that will further annoy me, and then make my way to the center core big cities and capital.

Now, I must remember that this strategy isn't the right one anymore. You have to target a high pop city first, or even better two that are close to one another. Taking those cities first will help alleviate loyalty pressure.

I did NOT like the loyalty system at first. now I'm ok with it. not in love, mind you, but as @Victoria mentions, there are ways to alleviate with cards, and yes there IS a price to pay from not slotting better cards,
but in the end, I am now very okay with the fact that there IS a price to pay... there should be !